Muslims urged to refuse 'un-Islamic' vaccinations

Zip · 28 Jan 2007 at 13:38

I would like to see any women breast feed there kid for 2 years!.

They wouldnt have nipples by the end of it

Babys start to bite according to mum

Al Vallario · 28 Jan 2007 at 13:42

VIRII said:
Then why mention prayer at all, why not simply say keep clean and washed.....

Because he's addressing muslims exclusively and advising them to follow their religious teachings rather than give their children "haram" vaccinations. As far as I know, prayer is an integral part of Islam, and ablution is explicitely described in the Qu'ran – therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that muslim parents already perform albution on their children before prayer and Dr Katme's statement is more of a "keep doing what you're doing..." suggestion than a radical piece of advice.

VIRII said:
His suggestion doesn't sound far fetched? Are you saying that vaccination is on par with breastfeeding and eating olives?

I personally do not believe that breast feeding and eating olives is on par with vaccination. However, that is not what Dr Katme is suggesting. I would assume that his advice hinges on his perceived severity of haram products and a certain amount of faith based on the likelihood of a young child contracting such diseases.

Edit: Just thought I'd reiterate my previous edit regarding the rest of your post, in case you missed it:

Al Vallario said:
Edit: Just to clarify, I do not agree with Dr Katme. I'm not a muslim, therefore whether or not vaccinations are haram is inconsequential to me, and I would have no hesitation in vaccinating any offspring of mine rather than following the word of the Qu'ran. I'm simply stating that his advice is not grounds for him to be struck off the register.

Jimbo · 28 Jan 2007 at 13:44

For christs sake, can we not give it a rest about the muslims?

Its getting realy realy boring. :rolleyes:

starscream · 28 Jan 2007 at 13:45

Jimbo said:
For christs sake, can we not give it a rest about the muslims?

Its getting realy realy boring.

Any excuse for a quick jab

VIRII · 28 Jan 2007 at 13:47

Al Vallario said:
I personally do not believe that breast feeding and eating olives is on par with vaccination. However, that is not what Dr Katme is suggesting. I would assume that his advice hinges on his perceived severity of haram products and a certain amount of faith based on the likelihood of a young child contracting such diseases.

Edit: Just thought I'd reiterate my previous edit regarding the rest of your post, in case you missed it:

So a muslim doctor is putting his *faith* ahead of normal medical practice, common sense and the general well being of the health of the entire population ......... The man is an absolute idiot and should NOT be allowed to encourage parents to wilfully endanger their kids or anyone elses kids.

VIRII · 28 Jan 2007 at 13:48

Jimbo said:
For christs sake, can we not give it a rest about the muslims?

Its getting realy realy boring.

Oh FFS can't we give it a rest about giving it a rest.
If you do not want to partake in the thread then don't.
You don't HAVE to read it, you don't HAVE to post in it.

Oh maaan this thread is like soooooo boring i just haaaad to post in it maaan.
Do you normally go out of your way to do things that bore you?

Inquisitor · 28 Jan 2007 at 13:49

Van_Dammesque said:
If (X and Y and Z) then V

Where X = breastfeed your child for two years - as the Koran says
Y = eat Koranic food
Z = ablution each time you pray

V = strong defence system

You will not reach V if X,Y,Z are not all performed. Therefore If and only if is valid, remove X or Y or Z and you dont reach V.

You're getting confused between if and iff.

VIRII · 28 Jan 2007 at 13:49

starscream said:
Any excuse for a quick jab

If that was a deliberate pun on injections then it was top notch

Otherwise STAB :mad:

Jimbo · 28 Jan 2007 at 13:52

VIRII said:
Oh FFS can't we give it a rest about giving it a rest.
If you do not want to partake in the thread then don't.
You don't HAVE to read it, you don't HAVE to post in it.

Oh maaan this thread is like soooooo boring i just haaaad to post in it maaan.
Do you normally go out of your way to do things that bore you?

The point of a forum is debate and im debating, so sod off.

VIRII · 28 Jan 2007 at 13:59

Jimbo said:
The point of a forum is debate and im debating, so sod off.

Nope you are spouting your opinion not on the topic but on the general number of threads relating to Islam.
If you wish to debate whether this doctor should be allowed to give such advice to parents re childhood vaccinations then go ahead.
If you find the topic boring then why partake?

Jimbo · 28 Jan 2007 at 14:01

Cos I felt like it.

Van_Dammesque · 28 Jan 2007 at 14:11

Arcade Fire said:
This is going to veer wildly off topic, for which I apologise!

You are wrong. I will illustrate this with an example. Let A be the statement "It is raining" and B be the statement "There are clouds in the sky". We can merrily (and correctly) make the statement "If A then B". However, that does NOT mean the same as "If ¬A then ¬B". It is perfectly possible for there to be clouds in the sky without it raining.

In your case, the equivalent statement is that it is possible for V to be true without X, Y or Z being true. What you are stating as true is the converse of the contrapositive, which is NOT equivalent to the original statement.

Then explain how to reach V without (X and Y and Z)?
If X => V, no.
If Y => V, no.
If Z => V, no.
If X and Y => V, no.
If X and Z => V, no.
If Y and Z => V, no.
If X and Y and Z => V, yes.
So you must have X and Y and Z to get to V.

Let X and Y and Z = P

Now if P is to be true only then do you get V. If P is not true then you would not be getting V. P is depending on if and only if P = X and Y and Z.

It is perfectly possible for there to be clouds in the sky without it raining.

Agreed.
But this man is saying you must have clouds in the sky to rain, or you must breast feed and eat seeds and absolve, then if all of these conditions are true you will then get a strong immune system. He didn't say your immune system may become stronger, he said "then you will have a strong defence system." implying if and only if you absolve and eat seeds and breast feed. He was stating facts and not maybes!

EDIT:

Wiki IFF said:
if and only if is a logical connective between statements which means that the truth of either one of the statements requires the truth of the other.

Ah okay, I get it now, I stand corrected, I hereby withdraw my IFF statement!

So now I'm saying (just to clarify if I understand) to qualify to use the IFF statement that X must be true with V, independent of the truth of Y and Z with X, but of course Y and Z will also be true too?
So to use IFF:
X => V, yes.
Y => V, yes.
Z => V, yes.
but also:
P => V, yes.
?

Heheh plz ignore as it is OT!

Vonhelmet · 28 Jan 2007 at 14:53

Jimbo said:
For christs sake, can we not give it a rest about the muslims?

Its getting realy realy boring.

Falling herd immunity is a serious concern, and in fairness it is becoming an increasing problem with the influx of immigrants. Tons of them aren't properly vaccinated. We're seeing an increase in TB thanks to Eastern Europeans coming here, and we'd pretty well wiped that out a while back.

Arcade Fire · 28 Jan 2007 at 15:00

Van_Dammesque said:
So now I'm saying (just to clarify if I understand) to qualify to use the IFF statement that X must be true with V, independent of the truth of Y and Z with X, but of course Y and Z will also be true too?
So to use IFF:
X => V, yes.
Y => V, yes.
Z => V, yes.
but also:
P => V, yes.
?

The statement "A if and only if B" requires that A be true whenever B is true, and B is true whenever A is true, ie A and B are either both true or both false.

You can consider your "X and Y and Z" to be one statement, call it W. Then "W if and only if V" means that W and V are either both true or both false.

If X and Y are true but Z is false, then "X and Y and Z" is false, so W is false too. (This is saying that if you are breastfed and eat healthily but don't ablute then you will not have a strong immune system).

If X, Y and Z are all true then "X and Y and Z" is true, so W is true.

If W is false then "X and Y and Z" must be false, so at least one of X, Y or Z must be false.

Van_Dammesque · 28 Jan 2007 at 15:06

Arcade Fire said:
The statement "A if and only if B" requires that A be true whenever B is true, and B is true whenever A is true, ie A and B are either both true or both false.

You can consider your "X and Y and Z" to be one statement, call it W. Then "W if and only if V" means that W and V are either both true or both false.

If X and Y are true but Z is false, then "X and Y and Z" is false, so W is false too. (This is saying that if you are breastfed and eat healthily but don't ablute then you will not have a strong immune system).

If X, Y and Z are all true then "X and Y and Z" is true, so W is true.

If W is false then "X and Y and Z" must be false, so at least one of X, Y or Z must be false.

lol, now I'm thinking that my original statement to be true as I called your w=p!
Just to clarify, the assumption was the doc was right and I was showing why he is wrong by saying Z (the praying and absolution bit) is wrong.

This is saying that if you are breastfed and eat healthily but don't ablute then you will not have a strong immune system

That is exactly what I was saying about why what he said was incorrect.

Tommy B · 28 Jan 2007 at 15:39

Why does anyone care?

If the Muslims really want to kill themselves because taking vaccinations is against what they believe in, then let it be.

In fact it should be the Muslims themselves making an outrage in this particular case.

VIRII · 28 Jan 2007 at 15:52

Jimbo said:
Cos I felt like it.

Hehhe at least that is more honest than some of the arguments in here

VIRII · 28 Jan 2007 at 15:53

Tommy B said:
Why does anyone care?

If the Muslims really want to kill themselves because taking vaccinations is against what they believe in, then let it be.

In fact it should be the Muslims themselves making an outrage in this particular case.

Successful vaccination programmes rely on something like 85% of the population being vaccinated.
Unless we can stop unvaccinated people going to school, walking the streets etc then there is reason to care.

Vonhelmet · 28 Jan 2007 at 16:15

VIRII said:
Successful vaccination programmes rely on something like 85% of the population being vaccinated.
Unless we can stop unvaccinated people going to school, walking the streets etc then there is reason to care.

Exactly.

Al Vallario · 28 Jan 2007 at 16:28

VIRII said:
Successful vaccination programmes rely on something like 85% of the population being vaccinated.
Unless we can stop unvaccinated people going to school, walking the streets etc then there is reason to care.

It's a good job "The Department of Health and the British Medical Association have criticised" and "other Muslim groups" have condemned his suggestion, then, isn't it?

Nothing will come of Dr Katme's advice. Grounds for him to be struck off? I don't think so. Newsworthy? Perhaps. National crisis? I've seen more pressing issues.